| General > General Technical Chat |
| I died a little inside today. |
| << < (29/30) > >> |
| Mr. Scram:
--- Quote from: Halcyon on October 17, 2017, 11:47:25 pm ---We just destroyed thousands and thousands of mostly working 5-year old Motorola portable radios, chargers, accessories etc... Only because they were fitted with strong encryption capabilities not available to the general public, so in the shredder they go. --- End quote --- The restrictions on strong encryption always puzzle me. It's not like AES512 wouldn't be almost the exact same thing, just computationally more expensive, and by all accounts as unbreakable as any other strong solution would be. |
| helius:
--- Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 19, 2017, 12:39:47 am --- --- Quote from: Halcyon on October 17, 2017, 11:47:25 pm ---We just destroyed thousands and thousands of mostly working 5-year old Motorola portable radios, chargers, accessories etc... Only because they were fitted with strong encryption capabilities not available to the general public, so in the shredder they go. --- End quote --- The restrictions on strong encryption always puzzle me. It's not like AES512 wouldn't be almost the exact same thing, just computationally more expensive, and by all accounts as unbreakable as any other strong solution would be. --- End quote --- It's largely an artifact of the way things were in the 1970s to 1990s, when encryption technology was considered a military asset and export controlled. At the time all public algorithms were weak or had been modified in some way by security agencies (DES s-box). There are some encryption algorithms that are top secret: the NSA calls them "Suite A". There are other algorithms that are public, but approved for classified government use, which were formerly called "Suite B", and now called "Suite CNSA (Commercial National Security Algorithms)". The Suite A algorithms aren't necessarily stronger, but being secret does reduce the population of cryptologists that can try to attack them. It also allows the implementations to be restricted in how they are used, which protects against some types of user errors. Suite A keys are heavily restricted, for example: it isn't possible for users to generate their own, but they must come from the security agencies. It also helps to introduce backdoors into systems sold to foreign militaries without the chance of them being discovered. |
| Mr. Scram:
--- Quote from: helius on October 19, 2017, 01:11:35 am ---It's largely an artifact of the way things were in the 1970s to 1990s, when encryption technology was considered a military asset and export controlled. At the time all public algorithms were weak or had been modified in some way by security agencies (DES s-box). There are some encryption algorithms that are top secret: the NSA calls them "Suite A". There are other algorithms that are public, but approved for classified government use, which were formerly called "Suite B", and now called "Suite CNSA (Commercial National Security Algorithms)". The Suite A algorithms aren't necessarily stronger, but being secret does reduce the population of cryptologists that can try to attack them. It also allows the implementations to be restricted in how they are used, which protects against some types of user errors. Suite A keys are heavily restricted, for example: it isn't possible for users to generate their own, but they must come from the security agencies. It also helps to introduce backdoors into systems sold to foreign militaries without the chance of them being discovered. --- End quote --- Security by obscurity. Nice. Not only are these algorythms much less tested and scrutinized for vulnerabilities, it's also easier to be lulled into a false sense of security. Then again, these lads are supposed to be the best and brightest, so I won't pretend to casually know better ;D |
| CatalinaWOW:
It just occurred to me that there is a solution to the tax write down part of this issue. As always, it comes down to making greed work for you. It will take a while to implement as it requires legislation, but keep the greed thing in mind. The problem is the government doesn't want to see its tax revenue damaged by companies writing down the value of equipment, and then benefiting from that "zero value" asset. So instead of requiring destruction, make it a crime to destroy it - require it to be sold with proceeds going to the government. New revenue is always attractive to government so this has a real chance of flying. We will benefit because the gear won't be destroyed, and likely will be relatively low cost. The only losers are the TE makers who will have a slightly smaller market for new gear. But only slightly because there are few of us ogling these discarded items who can afford the new stuff. |
| sony mavica:
this is madness |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |